Science vs. Scripture (or, history repeats itself)

There was a time when scientists made a series of discoveries that revolutionized our understanding of the world around us. They began proposing new theories to explain these groundbreaking observations.

Not everyone was happy about it.

Many in the church felt threatened by the new scientific consensus, which undermined confidence in Scripture (so it was thought), because it contradicted some of what Scripture seemed to say about the universe.

So the church rejected these new theories as “godless,” even though many scientists (though by no means all) professed a deep and abiding faith in God.

Church leaders expended vast resources trying to discredit the new science. They accused scientists of being hostile toward religion and discouraged the faithful from reading any of their books.

“Science or Scripture,” the church seemed to say. “You have to choose.”

For some, this might sum up the present-day creation-versus-evolution debate. But it also describes a scene from our more distant past.

Over 500 years ago, science began questioning the geocentric view of the universe, which said the earth is fixed and everything else revolves around it.

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo. These were the scientific trailblazers who brought geocentrism crashing down. The church fought them tooth and nail because it feared that without a geocentric universe, the Bible would come crashing down as well.

After all, Joshua 10 described the sun, not the earth, standing still during a battle between Israel and the Amorites. 1 Chronicles 16:30 said the earth “cannot be moved.” (And the list goes on.)

The new science, heliocentrism, was regarded as a threat to faith. It had to be stopped.

In fact, opposition to it was one of relatively few areas of common ground between Catholics and Protestants (who, generally, were still trying to kill one another).

On one side, Rome forced Galileo to recant his scientific theories (under threat of torture) and sentenced him to house arrest for the remainder of his life. Books by Galileo and Kepler were banned by the pope — for over 200 years in some cases.

Sixteenth-century Protestants took by and large the same view as their Catholic counterparts. John Calvin wrote that “the earth… is placed in the center [of the universe].” It is “unmoved,” because God himself made it that way.

Calvin may not have been acquainted with Copernicus’ theory, but Martin Luther was. And he didn’t like it any better. In a conversation with a student of Copernicus, Luther reportedly said:

But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must agree with nothing else others esteem. He must invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! That fellow [Copernicus] wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

Luther’s disciple Philip Melanchthon went even further, suggesting governments should punish anyone who advocated the new science.

It took many years for the church to come to terms with heliocentrism. But eventually it did, largely because it had no other choice in the face of overwhelming evidence.

None of the contentious passages in Scripture (Joshua 10, Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, etc.) disappeared from the Bible. But they came to be read in a new light — not as scientific or literal descriptions of reality, but as something else.

Some would argue that we find ourselves in a similar situation today. Only now with evolution as the church’s Waterloo moment instead of geocentrism.

But we don’t have to fight this battle.

Science can’t answer questions of ultimate origin (i.e. God), and the Bible doesn’t seek to answer questions of science. To make it do so is to turn it into something it’s not. It’s making the Bible what we want it to be, rather than letting it speak for itself.

Five hundred years from now, I wonder if our descendants will look back on the Al Mohlers and Ken Hams of our world in the same way that most of us look back on the 16th-century church’s opposition to heliocentrism.

By waging a battle with science, Ken Ham and others are taking a page from a very old script. They are repeating history. (You might even say they’re refusing to evolve.)

Worse, by forcing people to make a false choice between science and faith, they’re inadvertently pushing people away from faith — people who conclude that science and faith are irreconcilable, that the evidence for evolution (for example, the Human Genome Project) is compelling, and that Christianity therefore is not.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

The church came out its last tiff with science a bit bruised, but otherwise intact. Faith didn’t come crashing down. The Bible didn’t stop being God’s inspired word just because people realized it may not be an inspired word about science.

If the church continues to pick an unnecessary fight with science, it will end as the last one did. And it will be a self-inflicted wound.

10 thoughts on “Science vs. Scripture (or, history repeats itself)

  1. Three comments:

    1) Please define your terms of “geocentrisim” and “heliocentrism.”
    2) “Evolution” is not a science. It is a religious dogma. Please define “science.”
    3) It seems you are avoiding the questions from the previous post.


    1. Andrew –
      1) These terms are well established and don’t need to be further defined by me. One is an established, measurable, demonstrable description of our solar system. The other is a discredited theory that most reasonable people abandoned 500 years ago.
      2) Evolution is a scientific theory that has to be taken seriously, whether you agree with everything it says or not. No, it is not a religious dogma. Calling it such only distracts from the real issues and ignores the fact that there are many evolutionary biologists (not to mention scientists in other fields) who are also devout Christians.
      3) You’re entitled to think that if you want.

      Eric –
      Thanks for the (somewhat random) comment.


      1. Ben, you need to define those terms, because otherwise it seems plainly obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. Your unwillingness to answer questions or address factual issues is another example that evolution is defended as a religious dogma.

        1. Please define “geocentrism”
        2. Please define “heliocentrism”
        3. Please define “science”

        You shouldn’t be using terms that you are unwilling to define, and it did not escape me that you managed to reply without saying anything of substance.


      2. Please allow me to help out with an excerpt from an astronomy textbook:

        You might want to read this more than once:

        “We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.

        Sir Fred Hoyle, 1975. Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416.

        Geocentric and heliocentric are not “theories” – they are perspectives. They are not true or false in themselves, and thus neither one can be “disproved.” Only theories or factual statements can be proved or disproved. The decision of what we regard as a “center” is completely arbitrary and chosen for mathematical convenience on a case by case basis. Try arguing with your police officer that he is not measuring your speed correctly because of he was not using a “heliocentric” model.

        If you haven’t recognized that the only real difference in these views is which point in space is defined as “zero” them maybe you should consider why you are fighting tooth and nail for “heliocentrism” and trash-talking the book of Joshua.

        If you are going to fight on something, you should at least pick something that has the potential to be proven one way or another. Otherwise, you are worse off than the people that you were criticizing in your article. It seems rather hypocritical.

        However, “evolution theory” is not just a matter of perspective. It has very real problems with existing evidence, but it is propagated with the irrational religious fanaticism that you were just calling out. Instead of pointing fingers, I think it might be appropriate if you were willing to consider facts and take a look in the mirror, i.e. to be willing to “take the beam out of your own eye.”


  2. We are OUTRAGED by one priest’s dress code that prevents us from celebrating Mass. Please visit and lend your support at my blog. Thank you.

    If I had in any way offended you with this comment, please delete with my sincere apologies. Thank you, Eric


  3. So called proofs of heliocentrism addressed and refuted at Heliocentrism is being tossed into the dust bin of science along with the frog to prince evolution fairy tale. That’s not to say the scientists and many others who have a big stake in maintaining the status quo won’t go gently into the night.

    Those not closed minded against Sacred Scripture should visit


      1. Ben, I think that you and James are talking at cross-purposes with different definitions. I doubt that he is maintaining that the motion of Mars or Jupiter is most easily described with a pure elliptical orbit around the center of the earth (this is one of the reasons why I suggested that you should define your terms earlier.)

        I took a look at his recommended sites. Scripture-Catholic didn’t seem very helpful, but there was an interesting article at the “Galileo Was Wrong” site that I would recommend.

        Click to access Darwin%20Newton%20Einstein%20At%20the%20End%20of%20Their%20Rope.pdf

        I think that it would be good for you to read that article, in the interests of fairness, if nothing else. You might especially want to note that such celebrated names such as Stephen Hawking and Edwin Hubble were not able to confidentially dismiss what you were claiming was “abandoned by most reasonable people 500 years ago.”

        Taking that moment to read those twelve pages would be a lot more fair and constructive than offering each other flavored drinks.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s